`DATABRICKS, INC.,
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`DATABRICKS, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSED MOTION TO TRANSFER
`VENUE PURSUAN TO 28 U.S. § 1404(a)
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 36 Filed 06/25/24 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1439
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`SHERMAN DIVISION
`
`R2 SOLUTIONS LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-01147-ALM
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 36 Filed 06/25/24 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 1440
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`R2 DOES NOT DISPUTE THAT APACHE SPARK WAS DESIGNED AND
`DEVELOPED IN NDCA, WHERE KEY WITNESSES AND DOCUMENT
`CUSTODIANS ARE LOCATED........................................................................................1
`
`R2 DOES NOT DISPUTE A MULTITUDE OF OTHER CRITICAL
`CONNECTIONS TO NDCA. ..............................................................................................2
`
`R2’S SPECULATION ON DATABRICKS’ EMPLOYEES IS INCORRECT. .................3
`
`R2 WRONGLY IDENTIFIES MULTIPLE FACTORS AS “NEUTRAL”
`AND THREE FACTORS AS WEIGHING AGAINST TRANSFER. ...............................4
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................5
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 36 Filed 06/25/24 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 1441
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`In re Adobe Inc.,
`823 F. App’x 929 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................5
`
`In re Apple Inc.,
`979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..................................................................................................3
`
`In re Clarke,
`94 F.4th 502 (5th Cir. 2024) ......................................................................................................5
`
`In re DISH Network LLC,
`No. 2021-182, 2021 WL 4911981 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 21, 2021).....................................................3
`
`In re Genentech, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................5
`
`In re Google LLC,
`58 F.4th 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ..................................................................................................5
`
`In re Google LLC,
`No. 2021-170, 2021 WL 4427899 (Fed Cir. Sept. 27, 2021) ................................................3, 4
`
`In re Google LLC,
`No. 2021-178, 2021 WL 5292267 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2021) ...............................................1, 2
`
`In re Honeywell Int’l Inc.,
`No. 2023-152, 2024 WL 302397 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 26, 2024) .......................................................2
`
`Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 2:21-CV-00435-JRG (E.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2022 .................................................................4
`
`In re Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`14 F.4th 1313 (2021)..................................................................................................................5
`
`Logantree LP v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 6:21-CV00397-ADA, 2022 WL 1491097 (W.D. Tex. May 11, 2022)...............................4
`
`In re Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc.,
`52 F.4th 625 (5th Cir. 2022) ..................................................................................................3, 5
`
`In re Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`No. 2023-146, 2023 WL 8642711 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 14, 2023) ....................................................4
`
`In re TikTok, Inc.,
`85 F. 4th 352 (5th Cir. 2023) .....................................................................................................4
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 36 Filed 06/25/24 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 1442
`
`
`In re Verizon Bus. Network Servs. Inc.,
`635 F.3d 559 (Fed. Cir. 2011)....................................................................................................5
`
`VideoLabs, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 6:22-cv-00079-ADA, Dkt. 99 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 21, 2022) ..................................................4
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 36 Filed 06/25/24 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 1443
`
`
`R2’s opposition confirms this case belongs in NDCA. The center of gravity of this dispute
`
`is in NDCA and all events giving rise to this suit took place in NDCA. This is evident from the
`
`plethora of facts that R2 does not dispute in its opposition. Indeed, R2 does not dispute that both
`
`the patented technology and the accused Apache Spark technology were developed in NDCA. Nor
`
`does it dispute that key individuals with knowledge about R2 and the asserted patent are in or near
`
`NDCA. R2 also does not, and cannot, dispute that relevant Databricks witnesses—including
`
`, who was personally involved in creating the accused Apache Spark technology and
`
`founding Databricks, along with
`
`—are likewise based in NDCA.
`
`In contrast, R2’s arguments attempting to link this case to EDTX rely on speculation, and
`
`are factually incorrect. R2 provides no evidence showing that any Databricks employees in Texas
`
`possess relevant knowledge, and indeed R2’s speculation is belied by the sworn, unrebutted
`
`testimony put forth by Databricks. The Court should therefore transfer this case to NDCA.
`
`I.
`
`R2 DOES NOT DISPUTE THAT APACHE SPARK WAS DESIGNED AND
`DEVELOPED IN NDCA, WHERE KEY WITNESSES AND DOCUMENT
`CUSTODIANS ARE LOCATED.
`
`In its opposition, R2 does not dispute that relevant evidence and party witnesses with highly
`
`relevant knowledge are based in NDCA. As explained in Databricks’ Motion, Apache Spark, as
`
`the accused technology, is at the heart of this case. (See Mot. at 3–4, 8, 11–12.) This technology
`
`was designed and developed in NDCA (id.), and the witnesses who designed and developed it are
`
`likewise still based in NDCA (id.). R2 does not dispute these facts. (See generally Opp.)
`
`Instead, R2 merely argues that “where documents are ‘primarily generated’ has no bearing
`
`on where those documents are accessible from” (Opp. at 8) and that the key witness Databricks
`
`identified,
`
`, may not attend trial (id. at 11). Both arguments are wrong. First, the
`
`Federal Circuit has repeatedly instructed that courts must consider the “location where documents
`
`are created and maintained.” In re Google LLC, No. 2021-178, 2021 WL 5292267, at *2 (Fed.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 36 Filed 06/25/24 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 1444
`
`
`Cir. Nov. 15, 2021) (per curiam) (emphasis added); In re Honeywell Int’l Inc., No. 2023-152, 2024
`
`WL 302397, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 26, 2024) (per curiam) (favors transfer where “[c]ustodians of
`
`relevant records” are located in transferee district). Courts must do so because the location of
`
`where documents are created bear on the ease of retrieval.1 R2 does not, and cannot, provide case
`
`law supporting that the location of where documents are “primarily generated” can be disregarded.
`
`Second, R2 is simply wrong that
`
` will not be a witness in this case. Databricks
`
`specifically identified
`
` in its Motion and explained his relevant knowledge regarding both
`
`the creation of Apache Spark and the launch of the accused Databricks platform. (Mot. at 11.)
`
`Moreover, Databricks confirms that
`
` will be a witness, should this case proceed.
`
`II.
`
`R2 DOES NOT DISPUTE A MULTITUDE OF OTHER CRITICAL
`CONNECTIONS TO NDCA.
`
`Not only are Databricks and its accused technology undisputedly tied to NDCA, but so too
`
`is R2, the patented technology, and various third parties with knowledge of prior art and licenses
`
`to the asserted patent. Indeed, nowhere in its opposition does R2 dispute that the inventors of the
`
`asserted patent are located in or near NDCA. (See generally Opp.; Mot. at 9–10, 12–13.) Nor
`
`does it dispute that such witnesses have highly relevant information. (See id.)
`
`Further, R2 does not dispute that witnesses knowledgeable about R2 and the asserted
`
`patents—including former president Eric Lucas and current executives of R2 and its parent entity,
`
`Marc Booth and Kirsten Hoover—are located in California. (See generally Opp.; Mot. at 12–13.)
`
`R2 also does not dispute that such witnesses have relevant knowledge, including regarding “the
`
`sale (and value) of the asserted patent.” (Id.) Indeed, should the Court put any weight on the
`
`convenience to Craig Yudell and Paul Reidy—the only two non-Databricks witnesses identified
`
`
`1 R2’s argument that Databricks does not address “where its relevant source code is
`located” should be rejected. The relevant design and development (including generating code)
`occurred in NDCA, and thus favors transfer. See In re Google LLC, 2021 WL 5292267, at *2.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 36 Filed 06/25/24 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 1445
`
`
`by R2, who R2 alleges have knowledge about damages—the Court must weigh that against the
`
`convenience to the R2 individuals based in California, with the same knowledge.2
`
`Finally, R2 does not dispute that several prior art witnesses identified in Databricks’
`
`Motion are in NDCA. (See generally Opp.; Mot. at 5, 9–10.) R2 merely argues that it is unclear
`
`whether these prior art witnesses are “unwilling” and disputes the relevance of the prior art because
`
`“[n]o invalidity contentions have been served in this case.” (Opp. at 9.) Both arguments should
`
`be rejected. First, there is no case law supporting that third-party witnesses can be entirely
`
`discounted where proof of unwillingness is lacking. Indeed, the 5th Circuit has merely instructed
`
`that “less weight” is afforded where witnesses are not shown to be unwilling.3 In re Planned
`
`Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc., 52 F.4th 625, 630–31 (5th Cir. 2022). Further, even if the prior
`
`art witnesses are “willing” witnesses, their presence in NDCA weighs heavily in favor of transfer.
`
`In re Google LLC, No. 2021-170, 2021 WL 4427899, at *4 (Fed Cir. Sept. 27, 2021) (per curiam).4
`
`Second, the timing of the invalidity contention deadline does not negate the relevance of the prior
`
`art. As explained in Databricks’ Motion, multiple parties have relied heavily on the cited prior art
`
`to challenge the asserted patent before the PTAB. (Mot. at 5.) The asserted patent itself cites to
`
`the prior art, further showing the heightened relevance of the prior art witnesses. (Id. at 10.)
`
`III.
`
`R2’S SPECULATION ON DATABRICKS’ EMPLOYEES IS INCORRECT.
`
`R2 spends much of its opposition arguing that relevant Databricks employees are located
`
`in Texas, but these arguments are speculative, unsupported, and incorrect. Indeed, R2 offers no
`
`
`2 The two non-Databricks witnesses identified by R2 should also be given little weight
`because “[i]n patent infringement cases, the bulk of the relevant evidence usually comes from the
`accused infringer.” In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`3 The Federal Circuit presumes witnesses are unwilling unless they indicate otherwise. In
`re DISH Network LLC, No. 2021-182, 2021 WL 4911981, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 21, 2021) (citation
`omitted).
`4 Notably, R2 also does not show or even allege that the one third-party witness it identifies
`(Paul Reidy) is an unwilling witness. (Opp. at 10–11.)
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 36 Filed 06/25/24 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 1446
`
`
`evidence, instead seeking to rely on vague LinkedIn profiles that merit no weight in the transfer
`
`analysis. See Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:21-CV-00435-JRG, Dkt. 60
`
`at 14 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2022) (granting transfer where plaintiff’s arguments relied on
`
`“search[ing] LinkedIn” and “[plaintiff’s] own judgment that such employees are relevant to this
`
`case”); In re Google LLC, 2021 WL 4427899, at *7 (no weight to potential witness found on
`
`LinkedIn because plaintiff “was not at all specific about what testimony it expected to elicit from
`
`[the witness], or even if he possesses knowledge of the facts relevant to this infringement action”).5
`
`Moreover, R2’s arguments are simply incorrect. As explained in Databricks’ motion,
`
`
`
`
`
`12.)
`
` (Mot. at
`
`
`
`. (See Reply Decl. of A. Taneja at ¶¶ 2–4.) Consistent with recent
`
`Federal Circuit and Fifth Circuit cases, “the presence of [these] employees in Eastern Texas, who
`
`have no technical knowledge of the accused functionality here, ‘cannot overcome the immense
`
`inconvenience that the majority of relevant witnesses would face if this case were to be tried in
`
`[EDTX].’” In re Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 2023-146, 2023 WL 8642711, at *2 (Fed. Cir.
`
`Dec. 14, 2023) (citing In re TikTok, Inc., 85 F. 4th 352 (5th Cir. 2023)).
`
`IV.
`
`R2 WRONGLY IDENTIFIES MULTIPLE FACTORS AS “NEUTRAL” AND
`THREE FACTORS AS WEIGHING AGAINST TRANSFER.
`
`R2 concedes that most factors do not weigh against transfer. It argues that certain factors,
`
`including access to evidence, convenience to party witnesses, and compulsory process, are
`
`
`5 See also VideoLabs, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00079-ADA, Dkt. 99 at 15
`(W.D. Tex. Oct. 21, 2022) (“LinkedIn account[s] to prove these individuals are in Austin . . . is
`not enough to show that these witnesses possess knowledge relevant to the alleged infringement”);
`Logantree LP v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-CV00397-ADA, 2022 WL 1491097, at *20 (W.D. Tex. May
`11, 2022) (explaining that arguments “based only on vague LinkedIn profiles is a challenge”).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 36 Filed 06/25/24 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 1447
`
`
`“neutral.” (Opp. at 9, 11, 12.) But as discussed above, each of these factors in fact favors transfer.
`
`Moreover, R2 argues that three factors weigh against transfer. Each of these arguments fails.
`
`Local interest: R2’s arguments misapply the law, as R2 focuses on the parties’ connections
`
`to a forum, rather than the location of events giving rise to the suit. (See Opp. at 4–5; In re Clarke,
`
`94 F.4th 502, 511 (5th Cir. 2024) (factor focuses “on the events—not the parties”). It is undisputed
`
`that the patented and accused technologies were developed in NDCA. As this is “the most relevant
`
`consideration,” it favors transfer. In re Juniper Networks, Inc., 14 F.4th 1313, 1317 (2021).
`
`Administrative difficulties: R2 relies merely on statistics, which the Federal Circuit has
`
`repeatedly found to be speculative. See In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1347 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2009) (“case-disposition statistics may not always tell the whole story”); In re Adobe Inc., 823 F.
`
`App’x 929, 932 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (district court erred in transfer denial based solely on its perceived
`
`ability to more quickly schedule a trial).
`
`Practical problems: R2 points to previously-filed, and long-resolved, cases before this
`
`Court, but these cases involved “different parties” and “different claims,” and therefore different
`
`factual issues. In re Planned Parenthood, 52 F.4th at 632 n.5. Indeed, “whatever efficiencies
`
`would be had by combining cases asserting the same patents against different defendants with
`
`different accused products are as likely to be enjoyed by transferring this case as not.” In re Google
`
`LLC, 58 F.4th 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (clearly erroneous for district court to find this factor
`
`weighs against transfer, where related case was no longer pending in the transferee forum).6
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`All private factors strongly favor transfer, and all public factors favor transfer or are neutral.
`
`Because NDCA is clearly the more convenient forum, the Court should grant transfer.
`
`
`6 Further, this Court’s prior orders are “too tenuous a reason to support denial of transfer.”
`See In re Verizon Bus. Network Servs. Inc., 635 F.3d 559, 562 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 36 Filed 06/25/24 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 1448
`
`
`Dated: June 21, 2024
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Michael J. Sacksteder
`Michael J. Sacksteder
`CA Bar No. 191605 (Admitted E.D. Texas)
`Email: msacksteder@fenwick.com
`Dargaye Churnet
`CA Bar No. 303659 (Admitted E.D. Texas)
`Email: dchurnet@fenwick.com
`Gregory Sefian
`CA Bar No. 341802 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Email: gsefian@fenwick.com
`Su Li
`CA Bar No. 339374 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Email: sli@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`555 California Street, 12th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`Telephone:
`415.875.2300
`Facsimile:
`415.281.1350
`
`Vigen Salmastlian
`CA Bar No. 276846 (Admitted E.D. Texas)
`Email: vsalmastlian@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street,
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`Telephone:
`650.988.8500
`Facsimile:
`650.938.5200
`
`Jessica M. Kaempf
`WA Bar No. 51666 (Admitted E.D. Texas)
`Email: jkaempf@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`401 Union Street, 5th Floor
`Seattle, WA 98101
`Telephone:
`206.389.4510
`Facsimile:
`206.389.4511
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Databricks Inc.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 36 Filed 06/25/24 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 1449
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`
`I hereby certify that a motion to seal the present document has been filed.
`
`/s/ Michael J. Sacksteder
`Michael J. Sacksteder
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic
`
`service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local
`
`Rule CV-5(a)(3) on June 21, 2024. Additionally, I hereby certify that all counsel of record who
`
`consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via electronic mail
`
`per Local Rule CV-5.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Michael J. Sacksteder
`Michael J. Sacksteder
`
`7
`
`